What did you think of Into Darkness Kaylore? I liked it a lot but wasn't really keen on the ending where they just flipped the script of the original.

But that show gets a lot of hate and I'm not sure why.

Did you ever read the ST books about the origins and rise of KNS? I thought they were pretty interesting.

I liked the new movies. I didn't like them as much as the old ones, but I thought Star Trek and ST Into Darkness were solid movies. I really like Benedict Cumberbatch (Big fan of the Sherlock mini series). I have a love/hate relationship with Abrams. His stories are flawed, often having large plot holes that are just totally ignored, but he tells his stories very well. The aliens and alien worlds in the new ST are much more believable. The physics seem to be more suited for outer space as well. They really use the whole vacuum of space aspect correctly. I like a lot of the new actors. I like the new space battles and the new ship.

Start Trek has always been pretty cheesy. Whenever a new movie comes out re-doing an old story or old characters, somehow people seem to mis-remember the originals as better than they were. When I read the negative comments about the new movies, if I'd never seen the old stuff, you'd think the old Trek movies and shows were Downton Abbey level plot and character development. Patrick Stewart had the Shakespearean/London acting expertise (yet one more reason Picard > Kirk) but most of the others didn't. James Doohan's Scotty is borderline racist. Chekov's accent is just awful. And I think Brent Spiner and William Shatner both are guilty of overacting their parts. The stories and effects haven't all aged well. I mean at the end of the day it's science fiction - sometimes really good sci fi, and sometimes pretty awful. I think Start Trek is at its best when it isn't taking itself to seriously.

Personally I always preferred Star Trek to Star Wars. They were "first" and didn't have the luxury of only having to tell six stories. However I also see it for what it is; campy fun that sometimes makes you think. Star Trek isn't some sacrosanct art piece that no one should replicate out of reverence for Leonard Nimoy or whatever. It's meant for pure enjoyment. If you're trying to get anymore than that out of it, you will be disappointed.

Yeah, but it's a remake of a movie that was not made all that long ago. In addition, what inspired the remake because the original was crap. Why are we remaking crappy movies in the first place

Why not come up with something original or shine some light on little known true stories if an original idea is impossible?

Hollywood has gotten lazy.

Actually, it was less a remake and more of a better adaptation of existing source material. One that was a vast improvement over the previous adaptation, kind of like The Maltese Falcon (1941) was an improvement over The Maltese Falcon (1931), or like The Wizard of Oz (1939) was better than The Wizard of Oz (1925), and you can always pick your favorite version of Les Miserables (1952, 1978, 1998, 2000, 2012) But yeah, apparently Hollywood revisiting existing properties has never lead to anything worth while.

Also, I would contend that Hollywood has not gotten lazy, but that the financiers backing films have become risk adverse. Films are no longer cheap productions that can be thrown together and screened at the local drive-through. Even on the cheap end, you are looking at several million dollars of investment. I hate most of the drivel out there more than the next person, but if I had to bet my kid's college tuition on the success of the movie, I would probably be more inclined to put it on some craptastic Bay-Fest that I know will be terrible and make bank instead of betting that Guillermo Del Toro can get my money back on an R rated adaptation of At the Mountains of Madness (though, as a movie goer, I would much rather see the later)

I'm not sure how you got that from my post. Of course I've been to the movies a bunch in my lifetime but I tend to dig movies that aren't the usual offerings in the big multiplexes because a large majority of them are crappy.

Actually, it was less a remake and more of a better adaptation of existing source material. One that was a vast improvement over the previous adaptation, kind of like The Maltese Falcon (1941) was an improvement over The Maltese Falcon (1931), or like The Wizard of Oz (1939) was better than The Wizard of Oz (1925), and you can always pick your favorite version of Les Miserables (1952, 1978, 1998, 2000, 2012) But yeah, apparently Hollywood revisiting existing properties has never lead to anything worth while.

I never said that- what I am saying is that remakes/reinterpretations are too prevalent these days so the majority are worth skipping.

Am I shocked that the Godzilla reviews on here are not that good? No, it's pretty much a given that it would be average at best. It may have missed that mark as well though....

I liked the new movies. I didn't like them as much as the old ones, but I thought Star Trek and ST Into Darkness were solid movies. I really like Benedict Cumberbatch (Big fan of the Sherlock mini series). I have a love/hate relationship with Abrams. His stories are flawed, often having large plot holes that are just totally ignored, but he tells his stories very well. The aliens and alien worlds in the new ST are much more believable. The physics seem to be more suited for outer space as well. They really use the whole vacuum of space aspect correctly. I like a lot of the new actors. I like the new space battles and the new ship.

Start Trek has always been pretty cheesy. Whenever a new movie comes out re-doing an old story or old characters, somehow people seem to mis-remember the originals as better than they were. When I read the negative comments about the new movies, if I'd never seen the old stuff, you'd think the old Trek movies and shows were Downton Abbey level plot and character development. Patrick Stewart had the Shakespearean/London acting expertise (yet one more reason Picard > Kirk) but most of the others didn't. James Doohan's Scotty is borderline racist. Chekov's accent is just awful. And I think Brent Spiner and William Shatner both are guilty of overacting their parts. The stories and effects haven't all aged well. I mean at the end of the day it's science fiction - sometimes really good sci fi, and sometimes pretty awful. I think Start Trek is at its best when it isn't taking itself to seriously.

Personally I always preferred Star Trek to Star Wars. They were "first" and didn't have the luxury of only having to tell six stories. However I also see it for what it is; campy fun that sometimes makes you think. Star Trek isn't some sacrosanct art piece that no one should replicate out of reverence for Leonard Nimoy or whatever. It's meant for pure enjoyment. If you're trying to get anymore than that out of it, you will be disappointed.

Spot on how I feel Kaylore. Right down to the Sherlock reference. May be the best thing on TV.

It just amazes me people get so uptight about this stuff. I think it's a by product of loving this stuff (ST and SW) as a child and then growing up. You grow up and your tastes change and (possibly) become more sophisticated. I think too many people forget to look at them through the same lens you did as a kid. Did you care about acting or plot holes? Nah. You wanted a fun story and cool new stuff and just to see your fave characters in action again. Not sure why people as adults can't look at these movies in the same way. Sure, it helps appeal to our "adult" standards if the movies are well-acted etc. etc. but I just think sometimes the ST and SW fan boys expect waaaaaaayyyy too much.

Making a Star Trek and Star Wars flick is a film maker's Kobayashi Maru test.

I never said that- what I am saying is that remakes/reinterpretations are too prevalent these days so the majority are worth skipping.

Am I shocked that the Godzilla reviews on here are not that good? No, it's pretty much a given that it would be average at best. It may have missed that mark as well though....

And I contend that as a percentage of films released, remakes/reinterpretations are no more prevalent than they have in nearly any era of film. Now, if you want to argue that is still too prevalent that is your prerogative.

And I contend that as a percentage of films released, remakes/reinterpretations are no more prevalent than they have in nearly any era of film. Now, if you want to argue that is still too prevalent that is your prerogative.

How many remakes made in the last ten years are actually better than the movies they are based on? I would really like to see your list. you've already named Dred.

Conan 2011?
The new Robocop?
The Mechanic?
Nightmare on Elm Street?
King Kong?

And I contend that as a percentage of films released, remakes/reinterpretations are no more prevalent than they have in nearly any era of film. Now, if you want to argue that is still too prevalent that is your prerogative.

I'm not sure how you got that from my post. Of course I've been to the movies a bunch in my lifetime but I tend to dig movies that aren't the usual offerings in the big multiplexes because a large majority of them are crappy.

That's a lot different than I haven't been to the movies in 10 years because it all sucks. A **** ton of great movies have come out in the last decade. Your refusal to see them doesn't mean they are bad, nor does your pre-judgement of the entire industry.

Just makes you sound like a curmudgeon. These kids today don't understand what's good I guess.

That's a lot different than I haven't been to the movies in 10 years because it all sucks. A **** ton of great movies have come out in the last decade. Your refusal to see them doesn't mean they are bad, nor does your pre-judgement of the entire industry.

Just makes you sound like a curmudgeon. These kids today don't understand what's good I guess.

I just said I didn't go to the movie THEATER, not that I didn't watch a lot of the movies coming out these days- I know a lot of them are bad because I've watched them (big blockbusters included). I'm a huge movie buff which is why I'm tough on bad movies- that's also what Redbox is for....

I just don't see the point of spending 10+ on a movie ticket and another 10+ on crappy concession food for a movie that I give a 25% chance of being decent. All that does is give Hollywood the incentive to continue manufacturing poorly written scripts that are more about CGI than anything else.

Christ, "kids these days" I just turned 30 man! Maybe you need to rethink some of your "pre-judgments"....

Spot on how I feel Kaylore. Right down to the Sherlock reference. May be the best thing on TV.

It just amazes me people get so uptight about this stuff. I think it's a by product of loving this stuff (ST and SW) as a child and then growing up. You grow up and your tastes change and (possibly) become more sophisticated. I think too many people forget to look at them through the same lens you did as a kid. Did you care about acting or plot holes? Nah. You wanted a fun story and cool new stuff and just to see your fave characters in action again. Not sure why people as adults can't look at these movies in the same way. Sure, it helps appeal to our "adult" standards if the movies are well-acted etc. etc. but I just think sometimes the ST and SW fan boys expect waaaaaaayyyy too much.

Making a Star Trek and Star Wars flick is a film maker's Kobayashi Maru test.

I cannot speak for others, nor would I presume to, but I personally get uptight about the Star Trek reboots because they are poorly written. You mentioned Sherlock and to a large degree I find it enjoyable because it is well written. Now, its not perfect nor it is completely free of the occasional narrative plothole, and it is never a good thing when the audience is figuring out the mystery well in advance of the near mythical genius protagonist, but it remains a well written product with clever dialog and strong characterization.

The Star Trek reboots, well they are not well written. And I mean they are not well written in the same way I mean that Denver did not perform well against the Seahawks this past February. Abrams is a slick producer so he was able to cobble together an almost decent film (almost, but not quite) from the train wreck of the first script. But, I don't think that Francis Ford Coppola in his prime with the help of all the cocaine in Columbia could have saved the second one. Kurtzman and Orci are just bad. Look at their filmography. Its the hit list of crap summer movies from the past decade. Yet Hollywood keeps giving these guys work because they tend to work with directors who can at least pair their crap writing with pretty images and sucker idiots into parting with their money to see it.

And no, making a Star Wars or Star Trek film is not a Kobayashi Maru test. It can be done. But it requires a good script. The last few iterations of booth franchises have not possessed a good script. It is that simple.

And no, making a Star Wars or Star Trek film is not a Kobayashi Maru test. It can be done. But it requires a good script. The last few iterations of booth franchises have not possessed a good script. It is that simple.

I agree. The TNG movies were big disappointments to me. It's very disappointing to watch an episode like The Inner Light and then watch a silly popcorn flick like Nemesis or Insurrection.

Yeah bro, really. As I mentioned earlier The Maltese Falcon (1941) followed The Maltese Falcon (1931) just ten years earlier. Or you could look at a stretch in the 60's were various studios were pumping out a Monte Cristo remake every 3 years.

Spot on how I feel Kaylore. Right down to the Sherlock reference. May be the best thing on TV.

It just amazes me people get so uptight about this stuff. I think it's a by product of loving this stuff (ST and SW) as a child and then growing up. You grow up and your tastes change and (possibly) become more sophisticated. I think too many people forget to look at them through the same lens you did as a kid. Did you care about acting or plot holes? Nah. You wanted a fun story and cool new stuff and just to see your fave characters in action again. Not sure why people as adults can't look at these movies in the same way. Sure, it helps appeal to our "adult" standards if the movies are well-acted etc. etc. but I just think sometimes the ST and SW fan boys expect waaaaaaayyyy too much.

Making a Star Trek and Star Wars flick is a film maker's Kobayashi Maru test.

I was listening to a baseball analyst on ESPN radio talking about how people say the game so much more pure back in the day and they miss those times. Then he pointed out that just because YOU were more naive and pure back then, doesn't mean the things you enjoyed were. That's how I feel about nostalgia. It was never as good as you remember it. And right now you're missing something positive in your life because you're reminiscing about how "back in the day" it was so much better. But it's ok, because in a couple of decades you'll be whining about how 2014 was the bomb and people just don't appreciate how good things used be.

I was listening to a baseball analyst on ESPN radio talking about how people say the game so much more pure back in the day and they miss those times. Then he pointed out that just because YOU were more naive and pure back then, doesn't mean the things you enjoyed were. That's how I feel about nostalgia. It was never as good as you remember it. And right now you're missing something positive in your life because you're reminiscing about how "back in the day" it was so much better. But it's ok, because in a couple of decades you'll be whining about how 2014 was the bomb and people just don't appreciate how good things used be.

Yeah, doesn't always work that way. After all, there is the whole "The 90's sucked" meme that is fairly prevalent, with a lot of cultural touchstones from that era now looked upon with disdain. Nostalgia is often colorblind, but it is rarely completely blind. Trust me, I'm not missing anything. I saw both Trek Films in the theaters because I love Trek and wanted to love more Trek. They were both bad, the second being a near bottomless vortex of suck. Not because they diverged from what came before, but simply because they were bad.

I liked the new movies. I didn't like them as much as the old ones, but I thought Star Trek and ST Into Darkness were solid movies. I really like Benedict Cumberbatch (Big fan of the Sherlock mini series). I have a love/hate relationship with Abrams. His stories are flawed, often having large plot holes that are just totally ignored, but he tells his stories very well. The aliens and alien worlds in the new ST are much more believable. The physics seem to be more suited for outer space as well. They really use the whole vacuum of space aspect correctly. I like a lot of the new actors. I like the new space battles and the new ship.

Start Trek has always been pretty cheesy. Whenever a new movie comes out re-doing an old story or old characters, somehow people seem to mis-remember the originals as better than they were. When I read the negative comments about the new movies, if I'd never seen the old stuff, you'd think the old Trek movies and shows were Downton Abbey level plot and character development. Patrick Stewart had the Shakespearean/London acting expertise (yet one more reason Picard > Kirk) but most of the others didn't. James Doohan's Scotty is borderline racist. Chekov's accent is just awful. And I think Brent Spiner and William Shatner both are guilty of overacting their parts. The stories and effects haven't all aged well. I mean at the end of the day it's science fiction - sometimes really good sci fi, and sometimes pretty awful. I think Start Trek is at its best when it isn't taking itself to seriously.

Personally I always preferred Star Trek to Star Wars. They were "first" and didn't have the luxury of only having to tell six stories. However I also see it for what it is; campy fun that sometimes makes you think. Star Trek isn't some sacrosanct art piece that no one should replicate out of reverence for Leonard Nimoy or whatever. It's meant for pure enjoyment. If you're trying to get anymore than that out of it, you will be disappointed.

Time for your next shot of man juice!

Star Trek is the Bible, I guess even Noah gets rebooted these days...

I do think ST as I knew it is dead. Next they will have Star Trek Avenger or Star Trek Dark Knight and totally ruin any vestige(s) of what I loved about the show.